FEC Okays Some Soft Money Exemptions

WASHINGTON- Setting the rules for fund raising under the nation's new campaign finance law, the Federal Election Commission is applying a ban on lawmakers' raising of large corporate and union donations so narrowly that even its top lawyer warned it would be easy to evade.

With one Democratic member joining three Republicans, the Federal Election Commission voted 4-1 late Wednesday that the only way a federal candidate or officeholder could violate the ban on raising soft money that takes effect in November would be by explicitly asking for such contributions.

The FEC's chief attorney, Larry Norton, warned commissioners that adopting so narrow a test would open the door for lawmakers to continue raising such contributions. It doesn't take a "great deal of cleverness" to phrase a solicitation to elicit donations without flat-out asking for them, he said.

"I think this definition has the potential for great mischief," said Norton, whose office said the commission should rule that either requesting, suggesting or recommending a soft money contribution be counted as a solicitation. "I am concerned that this language creates a definition so narrow that it would frankly be very easy to evade."

FEC Vice Chairman Karl Sandstrom acknowledged his proposal "indeed runs that risk" but said he wanted such a strict test to protect free-speech rights.

"I am not into policing private conversations," said Sandstrom, a Democrat. "Everybody's out there soliciting support from everybody" and support could mean different things to different people, he said.

Soft money refers to unlimited contributions from corporations, unions and others for party-building purposes not directed at any specific campaign. Its critics contend such contributions, which often come as six-figure checks, have a corrupting influence on politics.

Campaign finance legislation passed by Congress this year bars national party committees and federal candidates and officeholders from soliciting or spending soft money after this fall's election. The new law lets special-interest groups and state and local party committees continue raising it for certain political activities.

While lawmakers aren't supposed to solicit soft money under the new law, it lets them appear as guest speakers at events where it is raised. Don Simon, chief counsel for Common Cause, a proponent of the soft money ban, said the FEC opened a new avenue for them to raise soft money by defining solicit narrowly.

"If they recommend or suggest a contribution be made, it won't be covered," Simon said. "There are all kinds of ways to get around it."

Voting with Sandstrom for the strict solicitation test were the FEC's three GOP members, chairman David Mason and commissioners Bradley Smith and Michael Toner. Democratic commissioner Danny McDonald voted against it, and Democrat Scott Thomas abstained in protest.

"The magnificent foursome strikes again," he said, referring to votes by Sandstrom and the three Republicans throughout the day to narrowly interpret the law.

Among the other 4-2 votes, the commission decided to let state and local parties use soft money to finance activities on the Internet - an increasingly important avenue for campaign contributions, grass-roots organizing and promotion. The commission made it clear that state and local parties can pay for e-mail distributions or telephone calls placed through the Internet entirely with soft money as long as they go to fewer than 500 people.

The commission was to consider several key issues Thursday, including what will happen to soft money that "leadership PACs" - political action committees members of Congress create to support other candidates - have left in November, and to what degree those PACs would have to separate themselves from the lawmakers to continue raising soft money.

The law's proponents have pledged to seek congressional action or sue if they feel the rules the commission creates to enforce the law are too weak.

Simon said his group was waiting to see what the FEC did on other key aspects of the law before deciding how to proceed. He said he was pleased with commission votes Wednesday turning aside efforts to narrow the types of political ads to which new restrictions on soft money spending by state and local party committees would apply.

As the FEC laid ground rules for the new world of fund-raising, President Bush was a few blocks away helping bring in a record of more than $28 million for GOP congressional candidates Wednesday night at the Washington Convention Center.

"We are all here for the same reason," Bush said to cheers from the more than 6,000 guests at the black-tie dinner. "We want Denny Hastert to remain the speaker of the House and Trent Lott to become the majority leader of the Senate."

They specifically excluded internet and email activity from the regulations, so at least this technology will remain outside the grasp of the speech police. The bit about "as long as they go to fewer than 500 people" only applies to phone calls placed through the internet, not to mass emails for political purposes.

Ah, yes. First GW signs this illegal bill into law. Then we have the politicians (from both parties) looking for (and finding) loopholes. Now, we will have exemptions for 'special people'. Man, I wish the sheeple would wake up one day, expell them all from office and line them all up against a wall and shot for treason.

But that's my opinion....

If I'm not mistaken the article points out the fact that CFR was an invented problem to convince some sheeple to vote for certain individuals or parties.

They expect people to believe that corrupt congresscritters would create legislation that would end any corruption and hold them accountable and people really thought this was going to happen.

Not that I'm for CFR. I'm for honest statesman that don't need to be told how to behave.

This was nothing but an incumbent protection racket from the start. The only part of it that's going to be effectively enforced is the part that forbids special interest groups from running ads 30/60 days prior. Bush sold the people out

The republicans have been fairly above board on this in that they have advocated "reform" as no limits on money but you must disclose where you got it from. The democrats have been the hypocrits "wanting reform" and "limiting money" but "not really limiting money" and not even disclosure.

This was nothing but an incumbent protection racket from the start.

A number of years ago there was a radio guy named Barry Farber on during my afternoon drive home. One thing he frequently said was that America is a two party system. The incumbent party and the everyone else party. It rang true then, and nothing I see inclines me to believe it's not truer everyday.

"...Bush said... "We want... Trent Lott to become the majority leader of the Senate."

Speak for yoursef, Dub.
I personally consider Trent to be merely the lesser of two weevils.

Speak for yoursef, Dub.

No kidding. If and when we retake the Senate, we need someone who hasn't had vital body parts removed (spine, etc...use your imagination) leading the charge.

Look up smarmy in the dictionary...you'll find a picture of Trent Lott. He is a liberal dream-come-true fantasy of a caricature of a Republican.

He's already shown his lack of leadership...why in the world would we want to subject ourselves to more of the same?

On another note...excuse me if I can't work up any enthusiasm for the millions raised after watching the RNC and the Senatorial campaign committee repeatedly use Party funds to fully back RINOs in the primary process.

So getting the money is not a problem but asking for it is? What a joke!

The FEC's all but admitted that Constitutionally Forcible Rape's unconstitutional. There's no way the law can be enforced without running afoul of that great loophole known as the First Amendment. Even so, its set Communist Cause Commissar Scott Harshbarger and Comrades Shays, Meehan, McLame and Feingevelt upon the warpath to hammer the FEC into permanently abridging the free speech and peaceably to assemble to petition rights of the American people.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.